No Sweeping Direction Can Be Passed To Decide A Particular Case On Priority, Interferes With Priorities Of Other Pending Matters: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition seeking directions to the District Court for expeditious decision on a divorce petition within a time bound period of six months.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that in the absence of any statistics on pending or disposal of cases before the concerned court, no sweeping directions could be passed to decide a case on priority. The Court opined that such an order interfered with the cause list of the court and also the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that in the case of Ali Shad Usmani v Ali Isteba (2015), the Allahabad High Court had ruled that it would be inappropriate to entertain such a petition only for expedited hearing of a suit since that would place a class of litigants in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases that might be of similar urgency would be left to be decided in normal channel. The case ruled that,

“The Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expenses of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order…We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disability socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.”

Similarly, in another case of Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors. (2011), Allahabad High Court held that the power to direct expeditious or out of turn disposal of any suit shall be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances, only when the Court concluded that the delay would cause gross injustice or when it came to the Court's notice that the concerned judge was purposely avoiding the disposal of the case for any oblique motive that might defeat justice. The case ruled that such direction caused resentment and dissatisfaction to those were waiting for justice from before.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the petition.

Title: Yatendra Kumar Sharma v Smt. Swati Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 231

Click Here To Read/Download Order